As for Michigan, it's a political swing state. But most of the information available indicates that the people responsible for making the decision that led to the Flint water crisis - Mayor Dayne Walling; Darnell Early, the emergency financial manager; Andy Dillon, the state treasurer - are all Democrats.

I think when it comes to Flint and its water crisis we can leave politics and parties at the door and go with the old addage that one shouldn't ascribe to malice what can be explained by sheer, basic human stupidity. (But I must admit I haven't followed the story too closely.)

Could you please elaborate what you mean in this context by "they" and "control"? I am not sure if I read you right and I don't want to jump to conclusions.

My father - well, a lot of people's fathers, I would imagine - had a saying: "You control 100% of the things you do." That's not just true on the individual level. Let's say a given community wants to paint all their houses blue. They can control when, where, and how their house gets painted blue, or even if they paint their house blue. Obviously, something like house painting is a bit simplistic, but it's the same idea.

I think when it comes to Flint and its water crisis we can leave politics and parties at the door and go with the old addage that one shouldn't ascribe to malice what can be explained by sheer, basic human stupidity. (But I must admit I haven't followed the story too closely.)

Flint was mostly caused by two things - money and state politics. Prior to the switch - which happened in 2014 - Flint's water for about 50 years was purchased from Lake Huron and the Detroit River. This water was treated and channeled through modern piping. In a move to save money - in the range of millions of dollars per year - the city government decided to switch back to the Flint River and its associated piping...which was made in the early 20th century with lead instead of modern materials.

State politics come into play when you look at who Flint was paying for water, but for the most part, it was about the Flint financial crisis and the attempt to save money that was responsible.

My father - well, a lot of people's fathers, I would imagine - had a saying: "You control 100% of the things you do." That's not just true on the individual level. Let's say a given community wants to paint all their houses blue. They can control when, where, and how their house gets painted blue, or even if they paint their house blue. Obviously, something like house painting is a bit simplistic, but it's the same idea.

No offense to your father, but I find it difficult to agree with that sentiment because it focuses on what one does or does not do, but leaves out how the choices and opportunities of what one can actually do are shaped by external factors one has no control over. Lets run with your example of painting those houses in a community and you'll see what I mean.

So you and your neighbors have decided to paint your houses blue. You go to a store to buy blue paint. The guy there tells you he is fresh out of blue paint. But you see buckets of blue paint right behind him. When you ask about that he tells you that it's all pre-ordered, already sold and he can't give you any of it. It sounds like a lame excuse, but he's adamant he can not sell you any blue paint. So you go to the next shop, and the next three or four after that and they all find some excuse not to sell you blue paint. But eventually you find a shop that will sell you blue paint - at twice the usual price, but hey, that's how it works, right? Supply and demand.

So now you have your blue paint, even if it took a lot more time and money than you envisioned, but at least you got it. Now, as you prepare to start painting some folks from across the street that forms the border of your neighborhood walk over and inform you in no uncertain terms that they do not like to color blue at all and if you go ahead with your painting project you won't be welcome on the other side of the street ever again. That's a bit of a bummer, but hey, if those jerks don't like you, their loss. Only that now people start scratching cars on your side of the road at night, sometimes someone pelts your houses with eggs or rotten fruit, and sometimes someone actually throws a brick through a window.

You don't like that at all so you call the cops. They seem a bit hesitant at first, chalk it up to some random drunk teenagers getting out of hand, but you insist long enough for them to show up more often in your neighborhood. As a consequence a lot of people on your side of the street get stopped and questioned and suddenly a lot more people on your side of the street get parking tickets and the like. Funnily enough, the same doesn't happen on the other side of the street, but, as you are told, since nothing bad has happened there, why should the police focus on that side of the road? And besides, that's a different precinct and what the cops there do is not the problem of the cops responsible for your side of the street.

Still, you go ahead with your painting. You are half finished with most of the houses in the neighborhood when a city official turns up and informs you that yes, you are free to paint your houses blue if you like, but you can not use that particular shade of blue because it is against local zoning laws. That paint has to either come off or be painted over with an allowed shade of blue.

Now you will have to go back to the start and look for another shade of blue in the paint stores. Guess what? They are fresh out of it.

How many people in your neighborhood will be left at this point who will keep up the fight for blue houses?

EDIT: Trying to catch up on a few other posts too...Replace "buying blue paint" in my example with "trying to get a loan to improve the community". Are you really certain about the "100% control"?

I think that you're missing the point of the saying. You can't control what OTHER people do. You can't control if the store owner is racist and won't sell you blue paint (even if that is an absurd 1950s 'we don't sell to no black people' kind of extreme) but you can control what you do after. Whether you respond by organizing your community, looking for other places to buy your paint, etc.

If your community has a problem with poverty, violence, etc. you CAN just yell loudly that racism is holding your community back. Or you could try to work more closely with your local law enforcement (see the community policing above which has been shown to be a great idea when its implemented), work with local families on budgeting and financial planning, and encourage the kids of those families to improve their scores in school and focus on potential lucrative careers.

One of these is much more likely to get a real change. One of these is mostly going to make a lot of noise, give the media a nice fat ratings week, and ultimately do nothing other than alienate some of the people that could otherwise help you.

The problem here is that the FIRST reaction always seems to be 'racism' instead of 'here are the problems we have, how do we address them? Okay and here is where racism can make these harder'. Because all the things I listed above? Not one of them has anything to do with the color of your skin. Career and trade focused education and community policing are both things you can implement in a poor community regardless of race to effect change.

Really? Because I thought the entire movement was predicated on the fact that the 'Black Experience' was that everyone was afraid of the cops and being shot?

You can't have it both ways.

I think that you're missing the point of the saying. You can't control what OTHER people do. You can't control if the store owner is racist and won't sell you blue paint (even if that is an absurd 1950s 'we don't sell to no black people' kind of extreme) but you can control what you do after. Whether you respond by organizing your community, looking for other places to buy your paint, etc.

If your community has a problem with poverty, violence, etc. you CAN just yell loudly that racism is holding your community back. Or you could try to work more closely with your local law enforcement (see the community policing above which has been shown to be a great idea when its implemented), work with local families on budgeting and financial planning, and encourage the kids of those families to improve their scores in school and focus on potential lucrative careers.

One of these is much more likely to get a real change. One of these is mostly going to make a lot of noise, give the media a nice fat ratings week, and ultimately do nothing other than alienate some of the people that could otherwise help you.

The problem here is that the FIRST reaction always seems to be 'racism' instead of 'here are the problems we have, how do we address them? Okay and here is where racism can make these harder'. Because all the things I listed above? Not one of them has anything to do with the color of your skin. Career and trade focused education and community policing are both things you can implement in a poor community regardless of race to effect change.

No. The entire basis of the movement is saying that people are tired of black people getting killed, so they're stating that their lives matter.

I think that you're missing the point of the saying. You can't control what OTHER people do. You can't control if the store owner is racist and won't sell you blue paint (even if that is an absurd 1950s 'we don't sell to no black people' kind of extreme) but you can control what you do after. Whether you respond by organizing your community, looking for other places to buy your paint, etc.

If your community has a problem with poverty, violence, etc. you CAN just yell loudly that racism is holding your community back. Or you could try to work more closely with your local law enforcement (see the community policing above which has been shown to be a great idea when its implemented), work with local families on budgeting and financial planning, and encourage the kids of those families to improve their scores in school and focus on potential lucrative careers.

One of these is much more likely to get a real change. One of these is mostly going to make a lot of noise, give the media a nice fat ratings week, and ultimately do nothing other than alienate some of the people that could otherwise help you.

The problem here is that the FIRST reaction always seems to be 'racism' instead of 'here are the problems we have, how do we address them? Okay and here is where racism can make these harder'. Because all the things I listed above? Not one of them has anything to do with the color of your skin. Career and trade focused education and community policing are both things you can implement in a poor community regardless of race to effect change.

I might as well say that you are missing my point, but that'll probably get us nowhere.

So... yes, my example was perhaps a bit direct, perhaps a bit too "50s" in that particular aspect. But discrimination in the real estate and banking sector does happen. I admit that I am relying on studies done around the turn of the century for this, but I have yet to find anything that shows that discrimination against blacks has lessened any since then. So maybe it's not that obvious. Maybe the store clerk doesn't all that obviously refuse to sell you the paint. Maybe he figures you for poor and directs you to the aisle with the most expensive paint and conveniently "forgets" to tell you about the cheaper paint in the storeroom. That's pretty much how it works nowadays - black people not being told about options that white people are being told about by real estate agents or bank employees who deal with people wanting a mortgage or looking for a house.

Community policing - it's a great idea, but it needs trust, and trust can't be built in a day. And a whole lot of trust has been lost by frankly unconstitutional plicing "tactics" over the years. Look at Daniels vs. City of New York and the "follow up" case of Floyd vs. NYC for a very stark example. The study done by Jeffrey Fagan as expert testimony in the Floyd case paints a very clear picture of discrimination against blacks. You can not seriously expect people who have obviously been discriminated against to be all happy and cooperative just because the police starts a few programs of "community policing". Trust - once lost - is a difficult thing to rebuild.

There is also the fact that the relationship between community and police doesn't exist in a vacuum. The police depend on funding and support from officials further up in the hierarchy, be it the head of a county, city, or state. These people usually want meassurable results. But community policing will not produce results over night. It's a long term effort. Arrest rates or the number of stop-and-frisk searches, on the other hand, will produce meassurable statistics on a monthly or quarterly basis. That's something politicians can waves around as "proof" of policing "success". To give community policing a chance, politicians need to adopt a long-term view and that is something that rests with them - not the communities policed.

And what's wrong with "yelling", as you call it? There is nothing in the First Amendment that prohibits people from expressing their opinion at a certain decibel level. Even if you think the tone is wrong, the noise too loud, it is still a valid expression of an opinion.

We are talking here about a segment of the American people who have been discriminated against for decades by all levels of government, from Washington down to municipal authorities. To say that they are the ones who should do something about it and just stop expressing their opinion loudly is, frankly, a joke (albeit a not altogether funny one).

Quote

The problem here is that the FIRST reaction always seems to be 'racism' instead of 'here are the problems we have, how do we address them? Okay and here is where racism can make these harder'

You can not solve the problem without adressing the root cause first. If you don't, the problem will grow again, like a weed. If you have a weed in your garden you can't stop it from spreading if you just cut off a few leaves here and there. You need to dig out the roots. Racism created those problems in the first place, so why relegate it to a distant second place? Racism is the cause of the problem. It's not making problems harder - it's what caused the problem in the first place.

To complain about people complaining about a problem, to ask people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when the bootstraps have been taken away from them for decades... Sorry, but that sounds a whole lot like victim blaming to me.

Part of the problem is education. Another is opportunity. There are others but I'll focus on these for now in relation to a few things that are happening in St Louis.

The past few years St Louis has started to see the possibility of becoming a tech center. Lots of software startups and all ready established companies are moving in. As a result tech jobs are appearing. And interestingly, they are often moving into buildings that are already there, that just needed some upgrading and repairs to be what the tech companies needed.

Opportunity

----

This year has also seen the creation of free clinics teaching basic to advanced Information Technology in the neighborhoods near the locations that the tech companies are moving into. The students are going into those tech firms that are needing people. They may not have bachelors degrees, but many of these tech companies don't want the business managers that is all the university system in the US (completely separate rant there) seems to turn out. They want WORKERS. People who don't care about churning out memo after memo, but want to get the job done or as many of this doodad done. Basically they want a blue collar approach to what had in the past been a white collar job, but no longer is due to the demands of our society. But these jobs do demand knowledge of computers and our school system is only now starting to catch up there. So the free clinics I mentioned are hoping to provide the knowledge needed.

You can not solve the problem without adressing the root cause first. If you don't, the problem will grow again, like a weed. If you have a weed in your garden you can't stop it from spreading if you just cut off a few leaves here and there. You need to dig out the roots. Racism created those problems in the first place, so why relegate it to a distant second place? Racism is the cause of the problem. It's not making problems harder - it's what caused the problem in the first place.

To complain about people complaining about a problem, to ask people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when the bootstraps have been taken away from them for decades... Sorry, but that sounds a whole lot like victim blaming to me.

And here's the root of the problem to me. Racism is not the root cause. 50 years ago that was a valid complaint, it isn't anymore. As a society we have moved far past the point of overt racial bias by the majority of the population. There is no segregation, it is 100% not socially acceptable to express any kind of racial bias, there are hundreds of laws in place to massively penalize any hint of racial bias in lending, hiring, or education (unless that bias is in favor of the minority but that's another discussion).

The root cause is poverty and that poverty is not a result of racism anymore. It might have been started because of racism but now it's the result of a vicious cycle where people grow up poor, don't seek to break out of that cycle because that's the environment they are raised in, and then continue it on down the line. And that is not something the government can change. That can only change when the people IN the cycle choose to break out of it. Some do. Thousands do not.

Now is racism still a problem? It is, and to some extent it always will be. Humans are hardwired to prefer the people most similar to them and you'll always have some that are going to take that to an extreme. Are there racist cops, cops that have shot innocent black people? Also 100% undeniable. But go down the list of all of these shootings. How many were actually a case of a white cop literally shooting a black person for no reason?

Not very many. Who are the big names that the movement likes to call out?

Mike Brown? Had just committed theft and assaulted a police officer. Regardless of whether excessive force was used he was not just an 'innocent man walking down the street'.

Eric Garner? Had been approached by police for illegally selling cigarettes and had an extensive criminal history. Again, the manner in which the force was used? Questionable. But once again not just 'some innocent guy that died only because he was black'.

Trayvon Martin? Wasn't killed by a cop at all, just an over-zealous moron but even in this scenario the fact that he had a physical fight with said over-zealous moron is indisputable based on the physical evidence. Did said moron confront him or physically accost him first? I wish we knew but it's not a cut and dry case.

Mario Woods? Randomly attacked a civilian with a knife and then pulled same said knife on the cops trying to arrest him.

In some of these scenarios I'll 100% agree that there are questions: did the officers over-react? Were there other options? But it's not victim blaming when the 'victims' were committing criminal acts and resisting arrest.

Of all of them Philando Castile is by far the best and most clear cut case. He wasn't in the middle of an illegal activity. And everything about his death seems to be a tragedy. That is what I call a victim and that is an incident that does need to lead to change. But it's one incident among a sea of others that are being used to prop up this movement.

As a society we have moved far past the point of overt racial bias by the majority of the population. There is no segregation, it is 100% not socially acceptable to express any kind of racial bias, there are hundreds of laws in place to massively penalize any hint of racial bias in lending, hiring, or education (unless that bias is in favor of the minority but that's another discussion).

And when was the last time laws being in place against something stoped 100% of possible violations of those laws? Murder is not socially acceptable. So I guess no one gets murdered? Theft is penalized by laws so I guess no theft ever happens?

Even if that part of your statement made sense, you might want to read through your post again and compare "overt" and "by a majority" to "there is no". The former two allow for some form of racial bias to still exist, the later does completely rule it ou. Make up your mind.

The root cause is poverty and that poverty is not a result of racism anymore. It might have been started because of racism but now it's the result of a vicious cycle where people grow up poor, don't seek to break out of that cycle because that's the environment they are raised in, and then continue it on down the line. And that is not something the government can change. That can only change when the people IN the cycle choose to break out of it. Some do. Thousands do not.

What's it gonna be? You want to blame the people or the environment they live in? You say the people should break out of the cycle but don't do it because they chose not to break out of it? Or are you saying that their inability to break out of the cycle is caused by their environment? The government could change that environment, but you say that the government can't do anything about it so I can only assume you are saying that, at the end of the day, the people who are who they are because of their environment don't change the environment that caused them not to break out of their environment. That is a pretty flawed logic - if logic it can be called.

And that's about all I will reply to this post, least I blow more than one fuse. Dog whistles are bad for my blood pressure.

And when was the last time laws being in place against something stoped 100% of possible violations of those laws? Murder is not socially acceptable. So I guess no one gets murdered? Theft is penalized by laws so I guess no theft ever happens?

Even if that part of your statement made sense, you might want to read through your post again and compare "overt" and "by a majority" to "there is no". The former two allow for some form of racial bias to still exist, the later does completely rule it ou. Make up your mind.

You mean the part where I immediately said 'there will always be racism?'. Because there will be. There will always be the guy that looks at two candidates and hires one because he's white. There will always be a cop somewhere that pulls a black guy over because he thinks he is 'suspicious'. But that is a far cry from the claims of the BLM protests that want to believe that white cops are out there hunting down blacks because they're black (despite the fact that these shootings make up a micro-amount of the total black homicides in the US) or that they can't get a job because they're black and white people will never hire black people because of racism.

This is the problem with this argument. Because it will never satisfy the people that want to cry racism because they'll always be able to pick out one example to support their claims while happily ignoring the millions of other examples that don't. You'll always be able to find an example of racism, sexism, or any other ism if you look hard enough. The part everyone seems to miss is that 50 years ago you didn't have to look hard. Racism was an overt, powerful force. Everyone could see it happening day to day from segregation, racially biased laws, and even people publicly announcing their prejudice.

Now if you look around what do you see? More minorities across the board enrolled in college. No signs, no politicians supporting the KKK. You see black people on TV, in movies, at your job, just as part of the rest of the country.

Never once did I claim racism didn't exist. All I claimed was that racism is used an excuse to avoid addressing the actual problems. It's like claiming your biggest problem is a cough when you have pneumonia. It's technically true that you have the cough, but it's not what's killing you.

Quote

What's it gonna be? You want to blame the people or the environment they live in? You say the people should break out of the cycle but don't do it because they chose not to break out of it? Or are you saying that their inability to break out of the cycle is caused by their environment? The government could change that environment, but you say that the government can't do anything about it so I can only assume you are saying that, at the end of the day, the people who are who they are because of their environment don't change the environment that caused them not to break out of their environment. That is a pretty flawed logic - if logic it can be called.

And that's about all I will reply to this post, least I blow more than one fuse. Dog whistles are bad for my blood pressure.

That's actually just... logic? An environment is created by the things that live in it. An environment with a large concentration of tigers means that slow, plodding herbivores are more likely to get eaten. Somehow adding more slow plodding herbivores will not somehow make that environment less predatory or more hospitable to the herbivores.

The difference with animals and people is that people are self aware. We are not only running on base instinct, we can choose. We can choose to encourage our children to focus on their studies. We can choose to encourage people to take certifications and classes that would net them jobs in blue collar careers. We can choose what we, as a community, consider acceptable behavior.

The government can't do any of those things. The government can throw money at schools, the government can institute programs, the government can offer tax breaks and loans to encourage businesses to develop in an area. But it can't force you to make sure you kid does his math homework. It can't make you decide that learning how to balance an account or write a paper is more important than football practice. The government can, at best, create opportunity. It's up to people to take that opportunity.

But it can't force you to make sure you kid does his math homework. It can't make you decide that learning how to balance an account or write a paper is more important than football practice. The government can, at best, create opportunity. It's up to people to take that opportunity.

Uhm...

I'm not even really sure where to start with this.

Are you really implying that black people, as a group, think that sports is more important than education? Are you really implying that black people, as a group, don't make their children do homework?

Disgusting.

First of all, one of the main reasons that black children and parents turn to sports and music to escape the ghetto is because the quality of education is so poor compared to white neighborhoods that their children either can't or won't get into college. There are a HUGE number of reasons why black students do not get the education that they need, and it's not simply 'laziness', as you seem to imply, on their parents' part. Often it's a lack of funding, representation, and understanding from their teachers. Don't believe me? Here's a report that might help, titled 'U.S. Education: Still Separate and Unequal".

Has it occurred to you that racism is far more perfidious than you may perhaps think it is? Black children don't see themselves in fairytales and books about science. They don't see themselves represented, at least, to the extent that white students are. For a more in-depth take on why representation in books is important, I'll leave this article here for you to read. You don't seem to want to acknowledge that racism is still a real problem as opposed to a secondary one, so I'm not going to type out the whole point of that article.

No one is arguing with you that education and an escape from poverty are important, but I really don't understand why you seem so determined to deny that racism still very much exists for black people in the United States. Even Michelle Obama, arguably one of those educated black women you want to see, has talked about her experiences with racism.

...but according to you, it's not really a problem, right? Because overt racism doesn't exist. You said: "There is no segregation, it is 100% not socially acceptable to express any kind of racial bias, there are hundreds of laws in place to massively penalize any hint of racial bias in lending, hiring, or education (unless that bias is in favor of the minority but that's another discussion)".

Wrong. There are plenty of cases within the last few years that disprove your point. But according to you, if we were to claim that these cases happened because of racism...we wouldn't be addressing the real problem? It's silly. Racism is very much an active and terrible force in our country, and we shouldn't pretend that it isn't real. Yes, education needs to be increased and poverty needs to be alleviated, but as a country we need to acknowledge that people of color have a very different experience and opportunities than we do.

I mean, this is just cursory internet searching. I'm sure I could find more. The point is, racism is still very much active in the United States, and Black Lives Matters is trying to point out that this idea white people have of a perfect, pretty much post-racial society just doesn't exist yet.

This is the problem with this argument. Because it will never satisfy the people that want to cry racism because they'll always be able to pick out one example to support their claims while happily ignoring the millions of other examples that don't.

I have offered more than enough statistics to show that we are not talking about a few selective samples. Where are your statistics, studies, and sources to show the millions of examples you allude to?

But it might not matter anyway, as you show where you are coming from far more clearly here (my emphasis):

You mean the part where I immediately said 'there will always be racism?'. Because there will be. There will always be the guy that looks at two candidates and hires one because he's white. There will always be a cop somewhere that pulls a black guy over because he thinks he is 'suspicious'. But that is a far cry from the claims of the BLM protests that want to believe that white cops are out there hunting down blacks because they're black (despite the fact that these shootings make up a micro-amount of the total black homicides in the US) or that they can't get a job because they're black and white people will never hire black people because of racism.

So we are talking about homicides now when cops shoot black people for no good reason, but we are to accept that because there are oh so few of those incidents in the grand sceme of things?

Yep. Hey, what's a few black lives after all, right? No big deal!

You have made the point for BLM far more succinctly than I could ever have.

1) It's hard helping your kids when you had a bad education or a good one in a different country (especially language)2) Some circles do favour "school work" (or healthy eating, or wtv) more or less even in the same country3) If you work like crazy you may simply have no time or headspace or not be home when your kids are doing their homework! (many French have a full-time of 35 hours weekly, but some have two jobs and/or 40 hours or are independant workers choosing their schedule...)4) Very hard to succeed in some crappy schools with up to 40 students in your classroom, unless you are gifted or your parents can afford tutoring for you. Those won't even help if your teacher is burned out and constantly MIA, cries in class because of bullies or whatever(5) There is a cultural component to considering or not that it's your kid's business to be on top of his homework. I was an only child, and my parents made sure that there was always at least one of them home when I was, and still wouldn't have thought of checking if I was doing MY homework)

So maybe it's not that obvious. Maybe the store clerk doesn't all that obviously refuse to sell you the paint. Maybe he figures you for poor and directs you to the aisle with the most expensive paint and conveniently "forgets" to tell you about the cheaper paint in the storeroom. That's pretty much how it works nowadays - black people not being told about options that white people are being told about by real estate agents or bank employees who deal with people wanting a mortgage or looking for a house.

That isn't quite a fair analogy - anyone can walk down the aisle of a hardware store looking for paint and read the prices on the labels so you can figure out that the clerk is trying to take you for a ride. The person who can't do that isn't black or white, just an idiot.

In contrast, financial and banking options for house ownership are a field unto themselves, one that people normally specialize in for careers, not have to learn themselves to navigate the vagaries of these institutions. Your average white family is at just as much of a loss to understand them as a black family is - the solution is to promote transparency and simplify the language used so that the layperson from the street can understand them without having an MBA or a degree in Economics.

Community policing - it's a great idea, but it needs trust, and trust can't be built in a day. And a whole lot of trust has been lost by frankly unconstitutional policing "tactics" over the years. Look at Daniels vs. City of New York and the "follow up" case of Floyd vs. NYC for a very stark example. The study done by Jeffrey Fagan as expert testimony in the Floyd case paints a very clear picture of discrimination against blacks. You can not seriously expect people who have obviously been discriminated against to be all happy and cooperative just because the police starts a few programs of "community policing". Trust - once lost - is a difficult thing to rebuild.

There is also the fact that the relationship between community and police doesn't exist in a vacuum. The police depend on funding and support from officials further up in the hierarchy, be it the head of a county, city, or state. These people usually want meassurable results. But community policing will not produce results over night. It's a long term effort. Arrest rates or the number of stop-and-frisk searches, on the other hand, will produce meassurable statistics on a monthly or quarterly basis. That's something politicians can waves around as "proof" of policing "success". To give community policing a chance, politicians need to adopt a long-term view and that is something that rests with them - not the communities policed.

Yes, politicians need to stop being self-centered dicks and seeking endless re-election in place of helping the communities that elected them. What does a politician do, though, when he is elected on the 'law and order' platform by a high crime community? Voters want to see results, they want to see action, they don't want empty promises. What is your average voter going to get behind?

"We started this new program to stop and search anyone who the police judges suspicious. Since we've instituted it, violent crime is down 40% from last quarter, and we expect it to drop another 30% by year's end."

OR

"We started this community policing program, getting the cops to work together with locals to reduce crime. We don't have any meaningful results yet, but our best projections tell us that in five years, all crime in the area will be down 80%."

There's a reason politicians love to use statistics and numbers - they sound real, even if they aren't real. It sounds like they're actually doing something, that strides are being made in addressing the issues facing the community. So yes, politicians need to be willing to take a longer view of things, but voters need to be able to take one, as well. It will do them no good to simply change their elected officials every couple of years when those officials fail to deliver the results that the voters want, not necessarily what is doable.

Moreover, the cops and the politicians might be the ones writing and enforcing the laws, but that doesn't mean that the neighborhood has no role to play. The kids I was friends with came from several different neighborhoods - inner city, suburbs, out in the country - but something they all had in common was that the neighbors took an active role in the policing of the young there. When you were out hanging out with your friends, you didn't want to act up because you knew that if someone heard or saw what you were doing, the next thing that would happen was that a call would be placed home, and when you walked in the door your father would say: "Mr. Brown had something very interesting to tell me today..." Forget the black community for a second - does any community today have that sort of cohesion, where that could happen? It's not where I live. If I called my next door neighbor to tell them about something their kid did, I would get a "who are you and why are you spying on my kid?" And maybe a phone call to the cops.

What's it gonna be? You want to blame the people or the environment they live in? You say the people should break out of the cycle but don't do it because they chose not to break out of it? Or are you saying that their inability to break out of the cycle is caused by their environment? The government could change that environment, but you say that the government can't do anything about it so I can only assume you are saying that, at the end of the day, the people who are who they are because of their environment don't change the environment that caused them not to break out of their environment. That is a pretty flawed logic - if logic it can be called.

The idea that we are shaped by our environments and experiences growing up is not a difficult one to wrap your head around. If you touch a hot plate, then you learn that that is not a good idea because you burn your hand. That experience has shaped your understandings and expectations.

But that does not mean that you will never touch a hot plate again. It might be an accident, you might do it deliberately on a dare (someone promised you a grand if you were willing to put palm to plate for 10 seconds), who knows? An accident is one thing, but in the other, you are choosing to touch that plate.

Pushing on - the idea that we are purely 'products of our environment' is dehumanizing. It reduces humans - intelligent and creative and capable of free will - to the level of animals or machines; acting on instinct, only doing what we're programmed to do. A child who grew up with an alcoholic father might, when under great stress, turn to the same source of false help that their dad did - because who you are is often influenced by your parents, right?

OR you can choose to say "no. I am not going to be like my father, I am going to be a better person than my father, I will never be like that." Breaking old habits and such things can be hard, but they can be broken. Other people might bring you to AA - but only you can make it stick.

Does the environment suck? Yes, the environment sucks! The environment sucks ten donkey balls and twice that on Sunday! But progress is made because people want things to not suck! That's the whole idea of America, right? The idea that the days of the generations who come after us should be better than our own.

My aunt has poliomyelitis - she was one of the children born before the Salk vaccine was available, or even in the testing phase. It's only a minor case, but she's told me how much even a minor case impedes her daily life. And from what I've learned on the disease, it was not fun to have, in any form. But the Salk vaccine was not created out of thin air overnight - it took work, years of work, before it was first administered. And now polio is practically an eradicated disease in modern industrial countries.

Who is ultimately responsible for the environment of the community we live in? Us, or someone 500 miles away?

Are you really implying that black people, as a group, think that sports is more important than education? Are you really implying that black people, as a group, don't make their children do homework?

Watch Coach Carter, or Glory Road.

And of course not! But it's awfully hard to make your children do their homework when you work until 9 at night and don't get home until close to 9:30 and you have to be up the next day at 6 to go to your second job. One of the problems that faces communities in general - not just the black community - is the rising rate of single parenthood within them. The black community simply has the largest percentage of it, and so the effects we can see writ larger than anywhere else.

Values are taught to you, just like math or English or any other academic discipline. And what's harder? Having to figure out everything yourself? Or having someone older and more experienced and who knows about these things come and teach you them? Oh, you can learn these things yourself, but you're going to screw up, you're going to make mistakes, that's a given. A parent can have all the right attitudes, all the right values, the right stuff needed to produce a great kid who becomes a great adult. But it means nothing if the parent isn't there to teach the kid these things.

First of all, one of the main reasons that black children and parents turn to sports and music to escape the ghetto is because the quality of education is so poor compared to white neighborhoods that their children either can't or won't get into college. There are a HUGE number of reasons why black students do not get the education that they need, and it's not simply 'laziness', as you seem to imply, on their parents' part. Often it's a lack of funding, representation, and understanding from their teachers. Don't believe me? Here's a report that might help, titled 'U.S. Education: Still Separate and Unequal".

I read a book when I was studying to be a teacher by Jonathan Kozol called Savage Inequalities. Now, it was released 25 years ago, but I personally believe it's lessons are just as valid today as when the book was released.

Kozol analyzed and observed at schools with low per student spending, as well as ones with high per student spending. The reason he found for the inequality was economic, not racial; schools were funded on the local level by property taxes - so poor districts had crappy budgets whereas high wealth ones had plenty. That could have been easily fixed with programs like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, but those bungled badly - the promised assistance money needed to go to the schools that flunked the tests, that were being reviewed for state takeover and control (and shutdown in some cases!), not the ones where you had sterling records and the highest scores. In short, the scheme that we got needed to be reversed.

Hell, that could be even fixed on the state level, except you can bet that the parents of the well-to-do school districts are going to raise hell over the fact that their school budget is getting cut - they'd probably say something like 'being punished for doing well' while their money goes to...well, I'm not gonna say the things I would think they say, there's people present. That doesn't prevent the action from happening, but if the people doing this are elected to their job, you can bet they'll think twice before doing it.

I mean, this is just cursory internet searching. I'm sure I could find more. The point is, racism is still very much active in the United States, and Black Lives Matters is trying to point out that this idea white people have of a perfect, pretty much post-racial society just doesn't exist yet.

Something I would like to ask, in the midst of all this. Where did we get this idea that we now existed in a post-racial society? Seriously, I'm asking.

So we are talking about homicides now when cops shoot black people for no good reason, but we are to accept that because there are oh so few of those incidents in the grand sceme of things?

Yep. Hey, what's a few black lives after all, right? No big deal!

You have made the point for BLM far more succinctly than I could ever have.

Saying things like this is not going to help anyone, it just antagonizes people and makes them less likely to listen to what you have to say.

First off, no one is saying it's fine when a cop shoots an unarmed person. That's the things that people like Piers Morgan did after the Sandy Hook shooting - he stood on the graves of the deceased and declared that anyone who didn't agree with him was an uncaring bastard promoting dead children. Not only was that not true, it was a deliberate tactic to vilify his opponent and force them to shut up on the basis of being a bad person - trying to shame them into compliance. It was an ad hominem fallacy - attacking the person and their character rather than their ideas.

The #1 cause of death for black men ages 15-34, according to the CDC, is homicide, as well as the #2 cause of death for black women ages 15-24. Who is responsible for those homicides? The DoJ statistics suggest that a majority of the black homicides that take place every year are committed by other blacks, at a rate that far outweighs that of cops shooting unarmed persons.

Do we want to fix the problem with these cop shootings? Yes, absolutely. But we have to consider the source of most trouble, and try and address that to get the best result.

Look at it through the lens of gun control (since I brought it up). The idea of an assault weapons ban has been running around again as of late, but if you look at the statistics, far more people are killed each year with handguns that assault weapons. If the goal of the ban is to reduce firearms homicides, wouldn't it be more effective to ban handguns than it would be to ban assault weapons?

When I said that there was an idea of a post-racial society, I was quoting Tairis, just FYI. I, personally, do not believe we are in one.

I'm going to respond in short, because I'm tired.

Here's what I don't see:

1. Anyone who is pro-BLM saying that more funding, education, or poverty-alleviating programs are bad.

2. The black community sitting back happy with the rate of black-on-black crime. (If anyone is interested, there are a number of groups/churches/organizations devoted to solving this very crime, many of which work with local police).

Here's what I do see:

People who are anti-BLM stating that racism is not the problem, funding is. I hear the 'but-but-education!' and 'but-but-black on black crime!' arguments all the time, as if they are issues that are somehow being ignored because BLM is being focused on. No one is saying that those two things are unimportant. What they are saying, is that this message, BLM, is one that everyone can get behind.

Frankly, many people who don't live in predominantly black neighborhoods don't think much about black on black crime unless BLM comes up. They also don't think about educational funding/programs in black neighborhoods. Those straw men arguments ONLY seem to come up when someone says, "Hey. Maybe we, as a mixed society, should send a clear and loud message that cop-on-person-of-color-violence is wrong, and that black lives matter as much as everyone else's, despite the constant media messages that seem to imply otherwise."

Using the 'but what about x-problem?' argument is effectively a neat way to say "BLM isn't a valid argument".

Funny how it's sort of like All Lives Matters, isn't it? Rather than simply agreeing that yes, there are many issues plaguing the world and this is one that needs to be fixed, the original problem is deflected with a litany of other problems?

Anyways, I'm out. I can see myself as well as Cassandra LeMay providing sources and material that no one seems interested in reading, and I don't see any non-conjecture evidence coming from the other side.

Wrong. There are plenty of cases within the last few years that disprove your point. But according to you, if we were to claim that these cases happened because of racism...we wouldn't be addressing the real problem? It's silly. Racism is very much an active and terrible force in our country, and we shouldn't pretend that it isn't real. Yes, education needs to be increased and poverty needs to be alleviated, but as a country we need to acknowledge that people of color have a very different experience and opportunities than we do.

So for... the thousandth time, I guess I'll say one more time that never once in any of my posts did I claim we are in a post racial society. Or that racism didn't exist. Or... well any of that. What I said, over and over, is that you can't keep blaming racism for all of the problems and then wonder why nothing changes. Great, you posted some examples of racial bias (that I never claimed didn't exist in the first place). Equally funny... you posted a bunch of examples where the laws we have against racial bias were enforced and penalized those involved. You're providing examples literally of why the laws and societal pressure we have in place ARE working.

But it doesn't really matter what I say, does it? Because my opinion will never matter. If I don't agree and follow along with the group think of 'we're holding minorities down!' none of my suggestions are ever going to be considered by your side of the argument. Because even when one of your own sources provides a statement supporting exactly what I am saying that part gets brushed aside:

Quote

Educational expectations are lower for black children, according to Child Trends, a non-profit and non-partisan research center that tracks data about children. Black parents, most of whom are less educated than their white counterparts, don’t expect their children to attain as much education as white parents expect. Lower expectations become self-fulfilling prophecies, contributing to lower expectations from the student, less-positive attitudes toward school, fewer out-of-school learning opportunities and less parent-child communication about school.

The simple truth of the matter is we have a lot of broken shit in this country. Our educational system is a wreck, not just in black communities but across the board. We have an economic system that no one ever gets an education on how to navigate from that educational system. All things that could be fixed. But instead we'd rather pour our energy into blaming racism.

Not that anyone seems to have come up with an actual solution to all this 'racism problem'. Because the examples you posted seem to be doing exactly what they're meant to: penalizing those people that are still trying to enforce those stereotypes. So what's the proposal? What actual solutions has BLM proposed? Cause literally the only example I can find that is even remotely related to BLM is the idea of body cameras. Which honestly I'm all for. The irony is I don't trust the cops anymore than anyone else.

I have offered more than enough statistics to show that we are not talking about a few selective samples. Where are your statistics, studies, and sources to show the millions of examples you allude to?

But it might not matter anyway, as you show where you are coming from far more clearly here (my emphasis):

So we are talking about homicides now when cops shoot black people for no good reason, but we are to accept that because there are oh so few of those incidents in the grand sceme of things?

Yep. Hey, what's a few black lives after all, right? No big deal!

You have made the point for BLM far more succinctly than I could ever have.

You mean like the instances were cops shoot unarmed white people? How about unarmed hispanics? Because that happens too.

But of course it must be an epidemic right? Black people are being executed by cops because while there are more white people killed by cops than black people, black people make up a lower percentage of the population? Not quite:

The simple fact of the matter is that there is no epidemic. There is no plague of mass executions. What you have are a small percentage of very questionable shootings that are always going to occur when you put human beings in a stressful, dangerous situation and give them a gun. And these rare and tragic occurrences need to be treated with the same scrutiny and effort as any potential homicide. Philando is a perfect example of those situations that need scrutiny.

But all the examples I posted before that you decided to twist into 'oh so you don't care if black people die'? The poster children of this movement? Almost exclusively individuals that were in the middle of committing crimes and resisting arrest. Maybe a case can be made for some that excessive force was used, but there is zero case for 'these men were completely innocent people killed by racist cops'.

But all the examples I posted before that you decided to twist into 'oh so you don't care if black people die'? The poster children of this movement? Almost exclusively individuals that were in the middle of committing crimes and resisting arrest. Maybe a case can be made for some that excessive force was used, but there is zero case for 'these men were completely innocent people killed by racist cops'.

I agree with you on somethings but two things that you mentioned to bring up irk me. Why? Because that fact that you can dehumanize someone for breaking the law or resisting arrest. People who view the situation as this is why police officers who use excessive force get off with slaps on the wrist at worst. There is never a real reason to draw your weapon if you aren't in real danger. The majority of shooters have all had questionable background for how they've treated black people while on duty. So perhaps they were more willing to take pull a gun on a darker skinned person.

I agree completely that it's not an epidemic because police brutality towards POC has been a thing since the police were created. Their job was never to protect and serve. Their job is to enforce. It's just that now people can share it with those who don't have to witness it. Now that people have to see these disturbing things and can follow the cases seeing the true injustice of our screwed legal system they are raising their voices.

People need ways to cope and a way to cope with the death of a human is to find anyway to dehumanize them. It's why we focus on the fact that a man can shoot another man in name of the law and go to work the next day with questionable motives or not. We don't bat an eyelash because the man was already a criminal. You know he stole cigarettes, ran from a parking ticket, resisted a wrongful arrest, etc...so he deserved to be shot. He shouldn't have mouthed off at the cop and he'd still be alive. Things under a true law aren't punishable by death so if we really open our eyes every person who was took a life for breaking the law (but not threatening others lives) should be held accountable and stripped of their badge and chance of getting a job in the field. Become a desk duty cop since they obviously can't handle intense situations.

I personally think the police need more in depth psychoanalysis throughout their time in the force and better training.

Who is ultimately responsible for the environment of the community we live in? Us, or someone 500 miles away?

I think you provided at least part of the answer with what you said about school funding. It's all well and good to talk about responsibility for change, but change sometimes needs resources and those resources can't always come from within the community.

But I feel going on about this at length might well be a waste of breath, as I would perhaps just repeat myself and end up offering analogies that will be criticized more for their wording than their content. So I'll just sum up my opinion in a single quote that should express well enough where I think responsibility should rest:

I agree with you on somethings but two things that you mentioned to bring up irk me. Why? Because that fact that you can dehumanize someone for breaking the law or resisting arrest. People who view the situation as this is why police officers who use excessive force get off with slaps on the wrist at worst. There is never a real reason to draw your weapon if you aren't in real danger. The majority of shooters have all had questionable background for how they've treated black people while on duty. So perhaps they were more willing to take pull a gun on a darker skinned person.

I agree completely that it's not an epidemic because police brutality towards POC has been a thing since the police were created. Their job was never to protect and serve. Their job is to enforce. It's just that now people can share it with those who don't have to witness it. Now that people have to see these disturbing things and can follow the cases seeing the true injustice of our screwed legal system they are raising their voices.

No one is saying they should be killed for being criminals. What they are saying is that the entire narrative of 'look at all these innocent men being shot' is BS. These were not innocent men. One of the examples I gave was literally a man that stabbed a random pedestrian!

It has nothing to do with whether or not they 'deserve' anything. What it has to do with is their decision to put themselves in that situation. Never draw your gun unless your life is in danger?

Tell me how do you decide that? Have you ever had a job where the people you deal with can pull a gun out of a wasitband, a back pocket, a boot, or a coat every single day? Or like many of the numerous examples the Post used as their 'unarmed black man killed' that included repeated scenarios where the man shot literally beat two officers so violently they had broken facial bones? Or the next where the guy was resisting arrest with enough violence that the officers radio, pepper spray, badge, and phone were literally ripped off his body and strewn around?

The real world isn't a pretty scenario wrapped up in a bow. A criminal doesn't suddenly become dangerous only the moment he draws a gun and points it at you. It takes less than a second on a smooth draw to pull out a pistol and fire. Even a .22 LR at point blank range can penetrate a bullet proof vest at the right angle, to say nothing of a shot to anywhere NOT protected by that vest. It takes only 15 lbs per square inch of pressure to crack the human skull, something even a moderately fit man can accomplish with a single violent blow against a hard object. This isn't Hollywood where cops slam the guy over the hood with a one liner and he's helpless and harmless.

That's the part that makes me livid. That this movement has the gall to treat these men as innocent victims. Men with multiple violent assault charges to their names in more than one case. So let me get this straight, it's a tragedy that a cop shot them but what about the people they beat, the violence they've done, the lives THEY harmed?

If BLM was a movement about the Philandos of the world, I'd be right behind it. But it's not. It's a cry of victimization for criminals that made the willful decision to break the law. Show me the videos where some black guy 'mouth offs' at the cop and gets shot outright. Because I haven't seen them and if I did I'll be right there with everyone else saying that guy needs to be tried for murder. It's funny that maybe if you don't try to scream and kick and throw a cop off you, they're probably less likely to be in fear for their lives.

Quote

People need ways to cope and a way to cope with the death of a human is to find anyway to dehumanize them. It's why we focus on the fact that a man can shoot another man in name of the law and go to work the next day with questionable motives or not. We don't bat an eyelash because the man was already a criminal. You know he stole cigarettes, ran from a parking ticket, resisted a wrongful arrest, etc...so he deserved to be shot. He shouldn't have mouthed off at the cop and he'd still be alive. Things under a true law aren't punishable by death so if we really open our eyes every person who was took a life for breaking the law (but not threatening others lives) should be held accountable and stripped of their badge and chance of getting a job in the field. Become a desk duty cop since they obviously can't handle intense situations.

1) They don't 'goto work the next day'. They are immediately on leave, they have to make multiple reports about what happened, have mandatory psychological evaluations and counseling.

2) Every time I see the argument about 'how they can't handle themselves under pressure' I roll my eyes. How? How do you expect them to handle themselves under pressure. Most of these cops live in a constant threat of these situations every time they interact with a suspect, but only a tiny fraction of cops ever even fire their gun in the line of duty. No matter how many training sessions, how many drills or classes you give them in the end everyone is going to react differently in that moment. The sad fact is that YES they do need more and better training, but no matter what you are inevitably going to have someone make the wrong choice. It's tragic and should be treated as such, but it is not a grand racist conspiracy.

All in all my biggest problem with the argument is this: 'Things under a true law aren't punishable by death'. Do you think these cops are going around out here and yelling 'I'm Judge Dredd!' *bang*

Read the actual incidents. Most of the time the death occurs a) the cop is confronting a suspect of a crime b) the cop is in the process of trying arrest the suspect. These aren't cops 'executing' poor black victims. These are police officers in situations where they have to decide in an instant whether or not that person that they are trying to arrest might KILL THEM.

Quote

I personally think the police need more in depth psychoanalysis throughout their time in the force and better training.

They need alot of things. They need funding that pays for salaries, computers, and programs instead of idiotic grants for fucking tanks. They need politicians and political bottom feeders like Al Sharpton and other opportunists to stop trying to make a buck or a vote off of every initiative instead of actually focusing on the long term goal. They need the ability to attract people to the job that aren't wannabe rambos, douchebags with power issues, and desperate 'I've got nothing else to do other than work retail' types.

I found this quote fascinating here and wonder if maybe this is why a fair amount of people have what I feel is a knee jerk reaction to BLM and the topics it brings up.

Quote

I recognize that the mythology we have in which racism is something that happens to bad people is destructive and false and it allows us to think racism is gone because bad people from history are gone. If I recognize that you can be a good person and that racism is in the oxygen we breathe it allows me to have a lot of compassion to let them metabolize that racism differently. There’s a false mythology that in the days of segregation the majority of white people were bad, evil people and no one today could hold that position if they were fed the same images and stories of why black people deserved it … where did Southerns get the belief that there was something so wrong with black children that they shouldn’t drink from the same water fountain? It wasn’t inner malevolence, it was images and messages that justified black people’s lower position in society. I think it’s important we let individuals who are brave enough to say they want to be a better American understand that our entire society sets them up to accept a lot of negative stereotypes of people of color.

Perhaps some people feel subconsciously (keep in mind im not a psychiatrist or behavioral scientist) or in the front of their minds that they are being thrown into the same box as the people you would see in the old footage of segregation and are lashing out more out of fear and panic.

I want to get back to police and the issues surrounding them for a second, because it's what I have the most experience in.

I'm a full time paramedic in a suburb of a very large city on the East Coast. The police and I have an intimate relationship, and as such I feel that it's easier for me to observe and speak about things that happen.

My life has been saved countless times by the actions of police, and undoubtedly there will be countless more times where I am in danger because of the nature of my job, and an officer steps in to make sure I am okay. That being said, I have also seen first hand police brutality. I have seen a kid get the shit kicked out of him because he was mouthy or tried to run, because he swung at an officer, or because they just didn't like his attitude. In a police report, when someone is documented as "falling down a few stairs while being escorted to the police car" or "hitting their head on the police car on their way in" you're immediately suspicious because that's probably not what happened. I've seen people being pushed and shoved, screamed at, threatened, and thrown to the ground in a situation that may not have warranted that response.

The problem is not that most of these police officers are bad people. I feel that a major part of the problem is that to train in the police academy takes less then six months in most places in the US. Do you think in six months an officer leaves the academy feeling prepared to be put on the street? Do you think that in six months an officer learns how to properly de-escalate a situation without using violence? When police forces are more concerned with salaries then the training of their officers, what did you think was going to happen? Believe me, I understand that it is not possible to be trained to handle every single situation that is going to happen. It's just not realistic. But I definitely feel that more thorough training could solve a lot of the problems we are experiencing today.

In my experience, the problem is not that people are being punished for their crimes, it is the use of force. No one is arguing that someone who breaks a law needs to suffer the consequences, those consequences just shouldn't be death at the hands of police. Stealing shouldn't mean death by police. Reaching for your wallet shouldn't mean death by police. Failing to signal a turn shouldn't be death by police. I feel that it is mostly inexperienced, ignorant officers that are giving everyone a bad name. That aside, there are bad apples, which is terrifying once you give them a badge and a gun.

As a white, cis woman there is not much I can say on the Black Lives Matter movement other then I whole-heartedly support it. I find that the hardest part of dealing with people who support 'Blue Lives Matter' is that they are unwilling to even acknowledge the fact that there are some officers that are awful police officers, and that something drastically needs to be changed. As a paramedic, I fully admit that there are some people I work with who I wouldn't trust to treat a family member in a time of need. I can step back and say that there are people who need better training, or who just aren't cut out to be a paramedic. Why is that notion so foreign to people who support 'Blue Lives Matter'?

The fact that a very large group of people spoke up and said, "Hey, we're being treated unjustly, something has to change!" is incredibly brave, especially when you think about how black people have been systematically oppressed. The fact that in response to that, someone said, "Hey! Everyone else matters too!" makes me sick, absolutely nauseated. At the end of the day, a police officer walking down the street in plain clothes is not discriminated against, because it's nearly impossible to tell his occupation when he's out of the uniform. A black person does not have that luxury, because there is no uniform for them to take off. Being a police officer is first and foremost an occupation, while being black is someone's identity, and so much more that cannot be changed by wearing a different outfit.

Perhaps some people feel subconsciously (keep in mind im not a psychiatrist or behavioral scientist) or in the front of their minds that they are being thrown into the same box as the people you would see in the old footage of segregation and are lashing out more out of fear and panic.

At least for some people that may be true. It reminds me of how I sometimes feel about statements made by what I would call the more "radical" parts of the feminist movement. (And no, please, please, lets not go to that place more than absolutely necessary. This is still about BLM and racism!)

I don't think I ever discrimnated against any woman, or anyone else, based on their sex or gender. So when I run into statements that condemn "the patriarchy" I feel pushed into a corner I don't belong in. When that happens my first instinct, my gut reaction, is to brush aside the whole statement, the whole movement, as being unfair to me. Just that I am a male doesn't mean I want to keep women under my thumb. It's unfair to me and therefore - or so my first reaction tells me - the whole notion must be unfair and essentially sexist.

If I substitute white and black for male and female, replace sexist with racist, I can understand why some people might feel that BLM treats them unfairly.

Once you are at that point it's easy to find ways to rationalize that attitude. Laws against gender discrimination have been on the books for decades, so women have no grounds to complain. Segregation ended almost 50 years ago, so why complain?

It's easy to believe something does no longer exist because the law says it should no longer exist. It's even easier when you are never confronted with the reality that still exists, despite laws that say it should not.

The whole darn thing is mighty complicated, multi-faceted, whatever words you'd like to describe it. BLM does a good job of drawing attention to the most violent manifestation of the underlying problems, but perhaps it can never drive home how complex the underlying problems are. I think that's actually perfectly fine. Protests against a single, violent aspect of racial discrimination should not be required to educate a whole country about a multitude of things rooted in decades of discrimination on a multitude of levels, from individuals to local governments to the federal government, just as a protest against fracking should not be required to adress each and every aspect of global warming or man-made envoronmental damage. I doubt many people would require that from an anti-fracking protest, so why should we ask something similar from BLM?

(And yes, I am aware that some people might surely attack my choice of analogies here, but I am beyond caring. If someone wants to attack the letter of the message instead of the spirit of the message that's something I am prepared to just ignore.)

I want to get back to police and the issues surrounding them for a second, because it's what I have the most experience in.

I'm a full time paramedic in a suburb of a very large city on the East Coast. The police and I have an intimate relationship, and as such I feel that it's easier for me to observe and speak about things that happen.

My life has been saved countless times by the actions of police, and undoubtedly there will be countless more times where I am in danger because of the nature of my job, and an officer steps in to make sure I am okay. That being said, I have also seen first hand police brutality. I have seen a kid get the shit kicked out of him because he was mouthy or tried to run, because he swung at an officer, or because they just didn't like his attitude. In a police report, when someone is documented as "falling down a few stairs while being escorted to the police car" or "hitting their head on the police car on their way in" you're immediately suspicious because that's probably not what happened. I've seen people being pushed and shoved, screamed at, threatened, and thrown to the ground in a situation that may not have warranted that response.

The problem is not that most of these police officers are bad people. I feel that a major part of the problem is that to train in the police academy takes less then six months in most places in the US. Do you think in six months an officer leaves the academy feeling prepared to be put on the street? Do you think that in six months an officer learns how to properly de-escalate a situation without using violence? When police forces are more concerned with salaries then the training of their officers, what did you think was going to happen? Believe me, I understand that it is not possible to be trained to handle every single situation that is going to happen. It's just not realistic. But I definitely feel that more thorough training could solve a lot of the problems we are experiencing today.

In my experience, the problem is not that people are being punished for their crimes, it is the use of force. No one is arguing that someone who breaks a law needs to suffer the consequences, those consequences just shouldn't be death at the hands of police. Stealing shouldn't mean death by police. Reaching for your wallet shouldn't mean death by police. Failing to signal a turn shouldn't be death by police. I feel that it is mostly inexperienced, ignorant officers that are giving everyone a bad name. That aside, there are bad apples, which is terrifying once you give them a badge and a gun.

*nods* I remember somewhere a soldier who had been to the middle east was making reccomendations to the Police Forces here at home, how to change things up and someone somewhere took heart. They used similar tactics to win hearts and minds and show the people of their area that they were there to help and protect them. And it raised the approval rating by a surprising amount.

At least for some people that may be true. It reminds me of how I sometimes feel about statements made by what I would call the more "radical" parts of the feminist movement. (And no, please, please, lets not go to that place more than absolutely necessary. This is still about BLM and racism!)

I don't think I ever discrimnated against any woman, or anyone else, based on their sex or gender. So when I run into statements that condemn "the patriarchy" I feel pushed into a corner I don't belong in. When that happens my first instinct, my gut reaction, is to brush aside the whole statement, the whole movement, as being unfair to me. Just that I am a male doesn't mean I want to keep women under my thumb. It's unfair to me and therefore - or so my first reaction tells me - the whole notion must be unfair and essentially sexist.

If I substitute white and black for male and female, replace sexist with racist, I can understand why some people might feel that BLM treats them unfairly.

Once you are at that point it's easy to find ways to rationalize that attitude. Laws against gender discrimination have been on the books for decades, so women have no grounds to complain. Segregation ended almost 50 years ago, so why complain?

It's easy to believe something does no longer exist because the law says it should no longer exist. It's even easier when you are never confronted with the reality that still exists, despite laws that say it should not.

The whole darn thing is mighty complicated, multi-faceted, whatever words you'd like to describe it. BLM does a good job of drawing attention to the most violent manifestation of the underlying problems, but perhaps it can never drive home how complex the underlying problems are. I think that's actually perfectly fine. Protests against a single, violent aspect of racial discrimination should not be required to educate a whole country about a multitude of things rooted in decades of discrimination on a multitude of levels, from individuals to local governments to the federal government, just as a protest against fracking should not be required to adress each and every aspect of global warming or man-made envoronmental damage. I doubt many people would require that from an anti-fracking protest, so why should we ask something similar from BLM?

(And yes, I am aware that some people might surely attack my choice of analogies here, but I am beyond caring. If someone wants to attack the letter of the message instead of the spirit of the message that's something I am prepared to just ignore.)

Keep in mind I got no loyalties to anyone here. I am cursed to eternally be on the fence so im neither for nor against anybody on here.

I tend to judge people on a case by case basis. The only bias/bigotry I know for a fact I have is when it comes to Nationalism. I have caught myself stepping across the line between Patriotism and Nationalism, though I have retreated back and remained on the proper side of loving my nation.

but back to the main topic at hand. I think that there is no real right answer. Everyone on every side wants some magic solution, some little button to push and make everything all better or to claim it is just one thing. Life isn't that simple and that's the real problem.

I am probably Rambling at this point.

Meh, im for everyone being equal and loved because its the American Way. That's all I have to say about that. There is probably nothing I can add that will help without me parroting the same thing over and over again.